Bush wins the election

No question the American left has not only failed America but has failed itself by not offering a true alternative. All US economic growth post Carter was a result of debt accumulation, from Reagan onwards. The US economy simply does not exist it is a figment of the imagination of the many. An economy based on debt is no economy at all in essence. Since the US will never be able to pay back her debts, the future of America is reminiscent of Argentina. Just like Argentina the economy boomed in the 90’s, Argentina was the neo-libearlist model state, growth, growing living standards but underneath it all was the truth. Deficits galore, and an economy based on debt. This is what I will see happen to America observe:

Argentina:

GDP: $476 billion (2000), $391 billion (2002), $435.5 billion (2003)
GDP per capita: $12,900 (2000), $10,200 (2002),$11,200 (2003)
Population below poverty line: 37% (2000),N/A (2002),51.7% (2003)
Unemployment: 15% (2000), 21.5% (2002), 22.9% (2003).
Current account: -$8,879 billion (2000), +$7.85 billion (2003)
Imports: $25.2 billion (2000), $9 billion (2002), $13.27 billion (2003)
Foreign Debt: $154 billion (2000), $155 billion (2002), $ 145.6 billion (2003)

Sometimes it takes great depressions to get a nations finances in order, look what had to happen to Argentina to get her finances in order. America under Reagan began this spiral downwards observe:

Current account USA:
1980: 2,150
1981: 4,841
1982: -11,600
1983: -44,217
1984: -99,007
1985: -124,470
1998: -203,850
1999: -292,860
2000: -410,300
2001: -393,390
2002: -503,427
2003: -541.8

How do you think the US is paying for all this? This is not an economy that is making money this economy exists out of the good will of others. It is in China’s, Japan’s, etc best interest to fleece America of all she has but propping her up until the American economy exhaust herself which she will, and my sincere hope is by that time China will be able to take up the slack. Economically the US in terms of trade has fallen even further:

Trade surplus USA:
1950: 362
1970: 270
1975: 2976
1976: -15704
1977: -37229
1978: -40198
1979: -35865
1980: -31418
1981: -34637
1982: -38442
1983: -64239
1984: -122388
1985: -133648
1998: -262212
1999: -322154
2000: -436808
2001: -401733
2002: -508570
2003: -$550,000
2004: -$581,000



Argentina in comparison looks tame…the end of America imo is coming.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It must have been god's will that George W. Bush won the election.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But the question is whether or not you're willing to relate that stuff you heard. If so, that can be dealt with. If not, it can't.

I'm sure we would disagree on the sum of what you're trying to tell me.

Life is not a series of still-frames, Wes. Were each sentence treated as if it were the only one in the Universe, perhaps you might have a stronger case.

This is your sense of equivocation. Or else your lack of facts. Trash away. What's the point of asking my permission? My dispute with Pangloss was his attempt to disingenuously represent himself as something other than a Republican supporter.

Where did you come into that?

You know, he would eventually post a couple topics trying to make his point, but I ended up doing more research than he was willing to, just to figure out what the hell he was talking about. Came up with dead ends and exaggerations.

I figured a little more toward "neurosis".

For all the whining and crying you do, you have offered very little in the way of demonstrating what you're talking about.

Has it ever occurred to you--and maybe this will seem a bit obscure to you--that instead of just complaining and telling me how wretched a person you think I am that perhaps you might make a case for what you consider the proper perception?

I mean, I realize that would require some effort, but given how many words you're wasting sheerly on your ego, maybe you ought to consider it.

That's priceless, Wes. I mean, wow. Let's look at your attempts to show me my ignorance:

• (upon coming back and looking at this, note that I did not yet realize the cross threading madness that was happening).
• Ah, that was in another thread that I haven't been following. I see, this animosity is carried over.
• Well, that wasn't in this thread so now I see the deal a little more clearly... but still I have to say, you're pissed at him because you've convicted him. ​

Remember that phrase, Wes: in media res. (I see your note; click here for a quick definition, or here for longer considerations.)

You reacted to a perception of appearance, yet you did not have at hand relevant facts. By stepping into the middle and presuming it the beginning, you set yourself up to make a number of false assertions that will not be reflected in the record.

I'm pissed because I've convicted him? Sure, why not? Yet you think I've convicted him without giving him a chance? Now there I disagree:

Well, the point seems to be that you couldn't even offer a validation of any of those ifs. At the point that it's rumor-mongering, what do I owe it? If it's so apparent, can nobody offer even a decent source? I mean, the closest even I came up with in doing some research to figure out what the hell one of his topics was talking about was so removed as to be inconsequential, and in fact rather a testament against a "Leona Helmsley" comparison. What is so goddamned arrogant about asking that people making such comparisons can provide even a scrap of a hint for the basis of their assignations?

At the time you entered my dispute with Pangloss, he had already refused to provide any hint of what motivated his comparison.

So what, then? Am I supposed to go out scouring the web in hopes of finding a lead on whatever rumor motivates his characterization and then respond to it in hopes that I have the right one?

Why should I have to make someone else's case for them?

It seems to me, after looking around for leads on his characterization, that he had nothing to go on. If I was missing some piece of evidence that would fill in the gap, he chose to not share it with me.

So, if I consider your perspective here, Pangloss was willing to get involved in a discussion with me, but not to give it any credibility? WOuld it not have been smarter, then, for him to just skip the whole misrepresentation thing?

Show me his pandering.

"Rewarded"?

At any rate, you might be the only person to wonder.

How convenient that you decide the context, as such.

A friend of mine once got through a physical fight with a girlfriend without hitting her; this was a good thing since it would be hard to explain after the fact why he decked a ninety-five pound woman. Of course, there is the necessary context of when she nailed him with the walking stick, smashed the glass plate of a coffee table over him, and then attempted to stab him with his own knife that was just sitting in a box in a bag in the corner of the room. All in the minutes before the police were called.

For some, an unconscious woman on the ground would be enough context.

Talk about grappling with context, though.

And without consideration of what you're actually getting yourself into.

So you keep saying. I mean, it seems like you're at least looking at my posts, since you're quoting parts. But are you actually reading them? Oh, that's right. Admitting that there were facts you had not yet considered has nothing to do with your lack of facts. How silly of me to forget.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your declaration that history isn't relevant matches thematically with your posts.

Furthermore, you wrote, "Your conjecture is demeaning and way, way off-base (as usual)."

And were you able to show what you were talking about? Nope.

Should I dwell on the question of whether you're smart enough to know what you're ducking?

I will reiterate the questions:

I am confident that history will indicate the following:

• The "good guys" were Iraq and the Taleban. ("Us" is merely a given, and included for the perspective of what that implies.)
• The "Beacon of Freedom" is our former American mission; the proactivity and vagary of the Bush Doctrine--in which perceived challenges to our desired interests can become cause for war, a vast change of ideology for generations raised to accept the social contract of the former. ​

Yet you did not decide that the historical context of the questions could have any influence on their purpose or outcomes? Your assertion that the conjecture is demeaning and way off base is shaky at best, and you make no effort to explain the basis of your condemnation.

Your judgment of when history is relevant and your judgment of context appear rather doubtful, as demonstrated by your continued lack of factual support.

Next time, think twice about what effort you're willing to put into pitching your case when you knock on my door.

All these pages later and you're still just floating biscuits.

What you show is what you show, Wes. Don't piss on the dog and tell everybody you're shampooing the bitch.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"I am confident that history will indicate the following"

The correct answer for the first question is: It depends on who you ask. How is it that you can't see that? How is it that it's wrong?

"Your assertion that the conjecture is demeaning and way off base is shaky at best, and you make no effort to explain the basis of your condemnation."

The basis for the condemnation was explained I'd swear, but you've disconnected it I think. You claimed something to the effect that I'd purposefully dodged the question because I was scared to address history or something like that. That was complete conjecture on your part. I had no interest in the specifics of your post. It was your sanctimonious tone that really erks me. What was it? Something to the effect of a flat condemnation of "the people", because of their choice. That's just obnoxious. That you do not understand their choice, or that your interpretation of your stimulous leads you to believe that their choice was "the sourge of humanity", is IMO, extremely elitist, arrogant and like I mentioned a number of times - sanctimonious. It seems to me that you presume you do understand their choice and you piss all over them for it. As if the only proper way is the tiassa way.

And maybe sometimes you have to piss on a dog to get it clean. Maybe it depends on how much of a bitch it is. Piss is sterile you know.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lol at these cow tipping my life revolves around walmart people thinking religious values gives the U.S world power.

Really how are people from nebraska suppose talk about having economic power when the only reason those people even have jobs is because much more economicly powerful liberal states like California and New York pay a dispropotiante amount of taxes to subsidze middle american farming and industry.

Ever notice that Cali with no "ethics, morals, or Religion," according to most middle america folks, and run by a bunch of hard democrats or republicans who are more liberal then most democrats has the 5th largest economy in the world and basiclly shyts on the rest of the country when it comes to puzzy, the environemnt, culture and overal qaulity of life?.

 

What is there left to whine about really?

I'll tell you- democracy.
Thats the enemy, why beat around (or on) the bush?
Turns out most of the people in america wanted bush to be the president. Democracy never meant the majority would agree with you.
It means whatever the majority happen to want will need to be endured by the rest.
Maybe bush was the dumber choice? Such is the nature of democracy.
You're displeased with democracy and equality, stay focussed.

 

The question asks for an assertion of historical fact. Iran, according to American policy, was not the good guy, else Donald Rumsfeld & friends would have backed them.

In history the United States' government chose Iraq over Iran, and sought to foster Islamic fundamentalism, including the Taleban, against the Soviet Union.

Certainly, it depends on who you ask, but some of those folks will assert incorrect historical fact.

Which explanation?

There's not a whole lot more candidates. But if you'd swear the explanation is there, why not just put it in quotes and reiterate it. You complain that we can't relate, and while I consider that a possibility, you don't make much of an effort to make yourself clear. You only carry on telling me I'm a nutjob, or that I've hit the bottom of the barrel, or that I make you want to puke.

It's not much to go on, Wes.

You mean when I wrote:

Or was it when I wrote:

I mean, you hailed me as the "pinnacle of sanctimony". (707798)

You wrote that the "conjecture is demeaning and way, way off-base". (707933) But you didn't offer any real explanation as to how. So I asked you why you weren't willing to argue history, and you said it's not really relevant.

In the end, you're just wandering around, flipping inflammatory language like fertilizer and, it seems, thinking that explains everything.

That's your problem, Wes. Don't make it mine, and don't go making it everybody else's. Deal with your own self.

So instead of bitching about it, you should make a reasonable argument out of it.

Here, let me make it easier for you, since it's obviously too much trouble to be anything more than vague. Is this the post you're complaining about? (It seems so, but I should never presume anything, nor conclude anything based on facts, when you're around.) Now then, to what do you refer? You've got a couple of choices. Or you can take the whole package since I'm serving it up to you on a silver platter.

Come on, take a whack at it. Stuff your attitude for a minute and make a sincere effort to tell me what the hell your freaking problem is.

Two points:

• If you're down to pissing on the dog instead of using water, well, perhaps there are other things more important than cleaning the dog.
• If your piss lathers up like shampoo, there are definitely things going on that are more importan than cleaning the dog. ​

 

Life dictates that you survive according to your impression of what that entails. The values of either side of any conflict dictate that they are right, regardless of the objection of the other party. People do what they think is right, even if it's wrong by other standards. Thus there are necessarily multiple valid perspectives of any scenario.

The question as I read it, asked for one's opinion. It asks for one's interpretation of what they think they know. It seems obvious to me that assertion of fact as someone sees it vs. how someone else sees it can easily constrewed to justify either answer. As you said about according to US policy and reverse according to Iranian policy. Hence the question, and the relevance of history in the ultimate outcome - become irrelevant to the question posed.

Sure.

What relevance do they have to your question?

Here it is:

Doesn't that explain it? (the basis for the condemnation. "How do you know", followed by an example you must have failed to consider when making your accusation that I was unwilling to contemplate your questions. The comment "unwilling wouldn't have such an accusational tone if it weren't preceded by: "Two simple questions that you're unable to answer, so you lash out." You basically said: "you can't answer my questions because you're ill-equipped". I didn't answer because I didn't want to. I didn't answer because it didn't seem pertinent to what I was pursuing.

If you must know, it was because at the time I was very damned tired and I didn't feel like it. It seemed reasonable to think that your participation in the conversation would would keep the conversation fresh in your mind. You apparently did not get my meaning, so it didn't. Now that I've posted the explanation as you requested, I hope you feel accomodated.

I provide the effort I have to offer when I have it to offer. I realize you find it unsatisfactory but have little consolation to offer. I am what I am and all.

All of which is true from my perspective at any given time. You ARE a nutjob. You DO hit bottom of the barrel, and my god man sometimes you definately make me want to puke. You've made it quite clear the feeling is mutual (at least in general terms of animosity). I don't "only carry on telling you" those particular things - though I do mention them when they cross my mind.

Not if you can't relate, definately.

Yeah that.

Covered that one above.

I think the description fits, though not all the time.

I thought I did. I can only put what I'm thinking. I hope you'll understand what I'm saying, but obviously you don't. Please don't tell me you aren't psychic. It's obvious. The point is I gave you the best I had at the time. I accept the responbility for the failed communication and have tried again. If that fails, if I have the energy I'll try again, etc.

Right, as I explained above. I don't see it as relevant to the correct answer to the question you posed.

No, I'm not. Our minds clash and it stifles the efficieny of communication under certain repeating conditions. Sometimes it seems to work okay, others not so much. I can never tell how effective my attempts to communicate have been until I recieve feedback from interaction with the product of the effort. Perhaps you can relate? It was worth a shot anyway.

Expressing my opinion is apparently a problem for you. I don't mind doing it much at all. I do my best to back it up, but you don't like how I go about it for the most part. I'll keep hacking away at it I suppose, as I do find the phenomenon fascinating/stimulating.

Why don't you understand that from my perspective, I have? That it doesn't meet your taste or capacity to relate doesn't mean I haven't tried. This is the theme. How many times have I said something similar? It's often much more rude, but to the same ends as I see it.

Yes. It reeks of condescension, "dripping with sarcasm" as you put it. The opener sums it up:

(It seems so, but I should never presume anything, nor conclude anything based on facts, when you're around.)

Facts are fine if you really have them. The problem is to me that is seems you have a hard time separating them from your presumptions. As long as you keep them straight, you can probably stay out of trouble. As long as you for instance, presume it is factual that I've not answered your question because I'm incapable, rather than any other plausible alternative - without any factual support, you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. Man I know I really should dig up all the examples for you, but I simply don't have the energy to organize that dissertation right now. In retrospect, my impression of my efforts are all to then ends of a dissertation on that basic theme. So reference the bulk of my posts in this threat toward you as my argument to support that you have a habit of presenting your opinion as fact.

Specifically, "this one's on the people" is remniscent of "YOU SCREWED THE POOCH YOU LOSERS" translated to PC. The comment about making terrorism "fair game" by choosing Bush is simply ludicrous. Terrorism is already fair game to those who utilize it.

Obviously you deemed that necessary. Bleeding-off the hate I see. It's necessary, and generally annoying to those downwind. It goes both ways, I understand. It's often part of interaction between the humans. We can strive to minimize it, but it can't be completely avoided.

Yes you're right it's a choice, but the choice doesn't separate you from the reality of what you are at a given moment. It might however, help one relate in moments to come.

Maybe he's really really dirty? Yeah well okay I'm not pissing on the dog again anyway. That doesn't mean I'm not going to be annoyed at your posts and express that annoyance though. It's apparently just the way things are - for now at least. It's not a grudge, it's a failure of communication or incompatable perspectives.

​

Like market your piss?

 

And this is a fine argument, but for a different discussion. Perhaps the one we could have had. But I don't see how it changes the historical facts related to the question; it's almost a trivia question, Wes. There is a factually correct answer and there are factually incorrect answers.

It just doesn't seem that difficult to grasp.

Would you do me a kind favor, then, and explain to me how one might justify the opinion that the United States favored Iran?

And if their facts are wrong, their interpretation will be unsuitable for even their own purposes, unless of course their purpose is to hold unfounded opinions.

There are factual answers. Did you even notice how grim the selection was? Yet these conditions are the produce of the policies our nation chooses. The answers are pertinent to what the people have endorsed.

Perhaps to someone seeking the slightest hint of a reason to complain.

Only to demonstrate the level of knowledge that goes into certain choices.

All that attempts to explain is why you're being a prig.

Of course, I keep forgetting that's all you're ever about.

You ought to try dealing with the topic, and stop following me from place to place in order to carry on your silly grudge.

(chortle!)

Like I said, afterthought without the thought.

Which leads us back to a question I asked you a couple days ago: What respect do you think you deserve?

No, you're not just flipping inflammatory rhetoric

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And in the meantime, you're willing to tell me what you think of me, but you still don't really do anything to tell me where you're getting it from.

Whatever gets you off.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thank you for making yet another topic about me, Wes. I would be honored, but this isn't one of your more charming aspects. Get off it.

Now then:

Yes, terrorism is fair game to those who utilize it, but now the American voter, in endorsing the Bush Doctrine, has said, "Yes, we want to be belligerent". We've finally given terrorists something solid by which they can attempt to validate themselves.

Especially if people pick up the tale in media res.

 

I notice on page 11 there where a lot of posts that said very little about the election.
Why am I seeing so many posts filled with personal abuse in here ?

 

good point but few ever pushes the report button these days so... I see no evil, hear no evil.